Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec
At 09:09 AM 9/17/04 +0200, Thomas Shaddack wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:17 PM 9/16/04 -0700, Joe Touch wrote: Except that certs need to be signed by authorities that are trusted. Name one. You don't have to sign the certs. Use self-signed ones, then publish a GPG signature of your certificate in a known place; make bloody sure your GPG key is firmly embedded in the web-of-trust. Right. And the known trusted place is 0wn3d by the Man. The web of trust is a scam. Know your pharmacist.
Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec
On 2004-09-17T19:27:09-0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 06:20 AM 9/17/04 +, Justin wrote: On 2004-09-16T20:11:56-0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:17 PM 9/16/04 -0700, Joe Touch wrote: Except that certs need to be signed by authorities that are trusted. Name one. Oh, come on. Nothing can be absolutely trusted. How much security is enough? Aren't the DOD CAs trusted enough for your tastes? Of course, 'tis problematic for civilians to get certs from there. DoD certs are good enough for DoD slaves. Hospital certs are good enough for their employees. Joe's Bait Und Tackle certs are good enough for Joe's employees. Do you think that Verislime is good enough for you? No, verislime is not good enough for me, for ethical reasons, not security reasons. What's good enough for most businesses is anything that keeps customers from seeing self-signed cert warnings. Given the choice, I'd pick geotrust over no-thawte or verislime. The only reason they're in business is because of browser warnings. It has nothing to do with physical security offered by the CA, or threat models, or anything of that sort. For e-commerce, nobody needs high security. Anyone using a high-credit-limit account online without a liability limit in case of account theft is a moron. -- The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth, and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails. -- L. Ron Hubbard
Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec
At 04:05 PM 9/16/2004, Joe Touch wrote: FWIW, the other system we were referring to - TCP-MD5 - works at the TCP layer. It rejects packets within TCP, before any further TCP processing, that don't match the MD5 hash. It isn't BGP authentication. Oh - I'd misunderstood. Yes, that sounds much harder to forge, so it's actually useful for DOS reduction. At 03:27 AM 9/17/2004, Ian Grigg wrote: I wouldn't think that the encryption need be opportunistic; in the BGP backbone world, as you noted, peers are known a-priori, and should have certs that could be signed by well-known, trusted CAs. Let's see if I can make these assumptions clearer, because I still perceive that CAs have no place in BGP, and you seem to be assuming that they do. ... When we come to BGP, it seems that BGP routing parties have a very high level of trust between them. And this trust is likely to exceed by orders of magnitude any trust that a third party could generate. Hence, adding certs signed by this TTP (well known CA or not) is unlikely to add anything, and will thus likely add costs for no benefit. If anyone tried to impose a TTP for this purpose, I'd suspect the BGP admins would ignore it. Another way of thinking about it is to ask who would the two BGP operators trust more than each other? There are two reasons to use the CA. One is if the parties don't know each other (not a problem here), but the other is so the VPN receiver has some external validation on the data it receives, making MITM attacks harder. For applications like BGP, you don't care if the CA is Dun Bradstreet or if it's just Alice's own CA, because it's really functioning as a shared secret but the commodity VPN hardware wants an X.509 cert for MITM protection. Bill Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: potential new IETF WG on anonymous IPSec
At 06:20 AM 9/17/04 +, Justin wrote: On 2004-09-16T20:11:56-0700, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 02:17 PM 9/16/04 -0700, Joe Touch wrote: Except that certs need to be signed by authorities that are trusted. Name one. Oh, come on. Nothing can be absolutely trusted. How much security is enough? Aren't the DOD CAs trusted enough for your tastes? Of course, 'tis problematic for civilians to get certs from there. DoD certs are good enough for DoD slaves. Hospital certs are good enough for their employees. Joe's Bait Und Tackle certs are good enough for Joe's employees. Do you think that Verislime is good enough for you?
O'Rourke: Why Americans hate foreign policy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=X0NZR23ED5X0NQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2004/09/18/do1801.xmlsSheet=/opinion/2004/09/18/ixopinion.htmlsecureRefresh=true_requestid=17114 The Telegraph Why Americans hate foreign policy By P J O'Rourke (Filed: 18/09/2004) Frankly, nothing concerning foreign policy ever occurred to me until the middle of the last decade. I'd been writing about foreign countries and foreign affairs and foreigners for years. But you can own dogs all your life and not have dog policy. You have rules, yes - Get off the couch! - and training, sure. We want the dumb creatures to be well behaved and friendly. So we feed foreigners, take care of them, give them treats, and, when absolutely necessary, whack them with a rolled-up newspaper. That was as far as my foreign policy thinking went until the middle 1990s, when I realised America's foreign policy thinking hadn't gone that far. In the fall of 1996, I travelled to Bosnia to visit a friend whom I'll call Major Tom. Major Tom was in Banja Luka serving with the Nato-led international peacekeeping force, Ifor. From 1992 to 1995, Bosnian Serbs had fought Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims in an attempt to split Bosnia into two hostile territories. In 1995, the US-brokered Dayton Agreement ended the war by splitting Bosnia into two hostile territories. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was run by Croats and Muslims. The Republika Srpska was run by Serbs. IFOR's job was to implement and monitor the Dayton Agreement. Major Tom's job was to sit in an office where Croat and Muslim residents of Republika Srpska went to report Dayton Agreement violations. They come to me, said Major Tom, and they say, 'The Serbs stole my car.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' They say, 'The Serbs burnt my house.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' They say, 'The Serbs raped my daughter.' And I say, 'I'm writing that in my report.' Then what happens? I said. I put my report in a filing cabinet. Major Tom had fought in the Gulf war. He'd been deployed to Haiti during the American reinstatement of President Aristide (which preceded the recent American un-reinstatement). He was on his second tour of duty in Bosnia and would go on to fight in the Iraq war. That night, we got drunk. Please, no nation-building, said Major Tom. We're the Army. We kill people and break things. They didn't teach nation-building in infantry school. Or in journalism school, either. The night before I left to cover the Iraq war, I got drunk with another friend, who works in TV news. We were talking about how - as an approach to national security - invading Iraq was... different. I'd moved my family from Washington to New Hampshire. My friend was considering getting his family out of New York. Don't you hope, my friend said, that all this has been thought through by someone who is smarter than we are? It is, however, a universal tenet of democracy that no one is. Americans hate foreign policy. Americans hate foreign policy because Americans hate foreigners. Americans hate foreigners because Americans are foreigners. We all come from foreign lands, even if we came 10,000 years ago on a land bridge across the Bering Strait. America is not globally conscious or multi-cultural. Americans didn't come to America to be Limey Poofters, Frog-Eaters, Bucket Heads, Micks, Spicks, Sheenies or Wogs. If we'd wanted foreign entanglements, we would have stayed home. Or - in the case of those of us who were shipped to America against our will - as slaves, exiles, or transported prisoners - we would have gone back. Being foreigners ourselves, we Americans know what foreigners are up to with their foreign policy - their venomous convents, lying alliances, greedy agreements and trick-or-treaties. America is not a wily, sneaky nation. We don't think that way. We don't think much at all, thank God. Start thinking and pretty soon you get ideas, and then you get idealism, and the next thing you know you've got ideology, with millions dead in concentration camps and gulags. A fundamental American question is: What's the big idea? Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach programme. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harbouring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does. America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being hegemonistic, of engaging in unilateralism, of behaving as if we're the only nation on earth that counts. We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned to spend more time with the family. China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai
Identifying the Traitor Among Us: The Rhetoric of Espionage and Secrecy
http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd-07282003-132723/unrestricted/karentdiss.pdf This study approaches espionage as a knowledge-producing and knowledge-disseminating practice similar to knowledge practices such as science. The study uses investigative tools drawn from rhetoric of cience studies and applies them to intelligence and, particularly, counterintelligence work. The result provides new insight into the nderdetermination of evidence, the interdependence of disparate iscourses, and the role of espionage in American culture .
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
-- James A. Donald: Iranian financed military movements, Hezbollah and Sadr, have been fairly well behaved - they don't target other people's children - just their own, but their willingness to cause the deaths of their own children is even more frightening than Al Quaeda's antics, though marginally less repugnant morally. People so willing to sacrifice children, are apt to be willing to use nuclear weapons. John Young More King George-type remarks, as with arrogant tyrants everywhere and their authority suck-ups. I don't recall the American revolutionaries herding children before them to clear minefields, nor surrounding themselves with children as human shields. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG j07YPfmxqEtV9Aq+HTfim7giQ/OhISFU23UtnRML 4CdvNbZ/OawRkjcNRLk/qxs0QlgxWL3C8L7gIUcbA
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
-- On 16 Sep 2004 at 15:54, Tyler Durden wrote: I'll grant there are some fanatics left in Iran, but Iran seems increasingly dominated by fairly sleezy clergy/judges. Like any government, theirs is deteriorating into a mere racket. And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times. Iran is fostering war in Iraq and cooperating with Al Quaeda, which after what happened to Saddam indicates a fair degree of insanity. Iranian financed military movements, Hezbollah and Sadr, have been fairly well behaved - they don't target other people's children - just their own, but their willingness to cause the deaths of their own children is even more frightening than Al Quaeda's antics, though marginally less repugnant morally. People so willing to sacrifice children, are apt to be willing to use nuclear weapons. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG JKV/vsDeMLA+XUjdEyUC/KWjhIp7SvJjIbs1S7N/ 4obymQ+9XJMZgOwhPiK6FAtItaG0jErbco9OOpmms
:-) (was re: How one can become a terrorist?)
--- begin forwarded text Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from bullae.ibuc.com ([unix socket]) by bullae.ibuc.com (Cyrus v2.1.13) with LMTP; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:29:53 -0400 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from cpe-066-061-026-172.midsouth.rr.com (cpe-066-061-026-172.midsouth.rr.com [66.61.26.172]) by bullae.ibuc.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C8526827C8D for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 21:29:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 01:33:55 + From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How one can become a terrorist? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Welcome to our web site www.shadowcrew.com/phpBB2/index.php Please use http://63.240.81.5 in case of our domain outage. You're invited to shop for large selection of bombs and different kinds of rockets such as surface-to-air, surface-to-surface and weaponry available at reduced price. With the following types of rockets you will be able to commit terrorist attacks, destroy buildings, electric power stations, bridges, factories and anything else that comes your mind. Most items are in stock and available for next day freight delivery in the USA. Worldwide delivery is available at additional cost. Prices are negotiable. Please feel free to inquire by ICQ # 176928755 or contacting us directly: +1-305-592- +1-919-319-8249 +1-314-770-3395 Today special: *** AIR BOMBS *** OFAB-500U HE fragmentation air bomb Fuel-air explosive air bombs -Not in stock BETAB-500U concrete-piercing air bomb ZB-500RT incendiary tank 500-KG SIZE RBK-500U unified cluster bomb RBK-500U OAB-2.5PT loaded with fragmentation submunitions RBK-500U BETAB-M loaded with concrete-piercing submunitions-Not in stock RBK-500U OFAB-50UD loaded with HE fragmentation submunitions *** UNGUIDED AIRCRAFT ROCKETS *** Main-purpose unguided aircraft rockets S-8 unguided aircraft rockets S-8KOM S-8BM-Not in stock S-13 unguided aircraft rockets S-13, S-13T, S-13-OF, S-13D, S-13DF S-25-0 S-25-OFM S-24B -Not in stock RS-82 RS-132-Not in stock *** ROCKET PODS *** B-8M pod for S-8 rockets B-8V20-A pod for S-8 rockets B-13L pod for S-13 rockets Recently received *NEW* Hydra 70 2.75 inch Rockets Air-Launched 2.75-Inch Rockets FIM-92A Stinger Weapons System Stinger 101: Anti-Air Our clients are well known Al-Qaida, Hizballah, Al-Jihad, HAMAS, Abu Sayyaf Group and many other terrorist groups. We are well known supplier in the market and looking forward to expand our clientage with assistance of Internet. Do not hesitate to contact us via ICQ # 176928755 Impatiently awaiting for your orders, ShadowCrew --- end forwarded text -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
At 12:15 PM 9/19/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: My running, personal theory is that Muslim fundamentalism (and in general, most fundamentalisms) get going when the locals gain a persistent sense that they're gettin' screwed over, See Crusades, which aint over til the tall buildings fall. and that their current government ain't helping a whole lot. The Saudi royalty is the best the US can buy! It's kind of a devil's bargain to obtain a source of strength. By necessity it needs to reject a lot of the local culture, otherwise there isn't sufficient motivation to fight. In general, it's probably on many levels predictable and even reasonable. Religion (of any form that posits an afterlife) is a terrorist weapon. Faith in the man with the silly hat is a WMD. Of course, this can boil over into bizarre, fanatical behavior, but then again as Mr Young so aptly put it, fanatical is what the screw-ers normally call mass behavior they don't like. Winners write the history books. In the case of Nukes, I'd point out that the nuclear nations have a distinct advantage at the UN or any other bargaining table, so if I were Iranian I'd be working pretty hard to get something quasi-viable together that could be called a nuke. Of course, the few truly fanatical members of the local nuke-wannabees might get a hold of the block box and, well, that sucks. 1. The UN doesn't let Rogues (tm) into the Security Council and thus a nuke is only *de facto*, not diplomatically useful in deterring colonial regime-changing. 2. Far more likely is that a decade's worth of work, a lot of money, and a few scientists will be vaporized by an Israeli Hellfire, made in the USofA by those proud flag-flying folks at Raytheon Death, Inc. The counter to 2 is to have two or more, one mounted on a missile on a mobil platform, how do you say MX in Farsi, and keep everything really really secret. The first nuke is for demonstration purposes, which might be a waste if its a U-gun type (except in making abundantly clear how far along your RD is :-). (Remember the Hiroshima bomb was *not* tested, so sure were the scientists. Trinity was a Pu-implosion finesse job.) The interesting thing is that Iran isn't buying a few from Pakistan. Oh that's right, the U$ bought the Paki 'leadership'. Also means that Al Q isn't willing to share their stash with Iran. They probably think they have higher-priority uses for them.
Disowned spooks get to be Mohommad's boyfriend for 10 yrs
http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=55256SecID=2 Soviets:Chechnya::US:?
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
On 19 Sep 2004 at 12:15, Tyler Durden wrote: My running, personal theory is that Muslim fundamentalism (and in general, most fundamentalisms) get going when the locals gain a persistent sense that they're gettin' screwed over, But the Saudi Arabian elite, of among which Bin Laden was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, are not getting screwed over. Similarly, the Javanese are not get screwed over. In an entirely literal sense, they are doing the screwing, in that boys and girls among racial and religious minorities subject to their power tend to get raped, and the rapists and murderers go unpunished. Secondly, these guys are no more fundamentalists than the World Council of Churches, or liberation theologians, whose views strongly resemble those of the terrorists, are fundamentalists. They tend to talk about Islam overthrowing Capitalism, a proposition that would have seemed wholly bizarre to Mohammed, who talked about Islam overthrowing Christendom. A christian fundamentalist believes he bases his religion on Christ and the twelve Apostles. The terrorists do not believe they base their religion upon Mohammed and the four rightly guided Caliphs. Rather they base their religion on much later authority. Bin Laden even claims the Turkish Calphate represented proper religious authority, a view that is extremely whacky among Muslims. The views of many of the terrorists have a resemblance to those of caliph al- Hakim, holds that living theological authority is supreme, and casually rewrite the positions of dead theological authority - a position whose Christian equivalent is analogous to High Church, which is generally regarded as the opposite of fundamentalist.
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
Tyler Durden wrote: And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times. That is what King George and his redcoats said about the ragtag colonials, American as well as those who suffered the king's abuse into the 20th Centruty. James Donald wrote: Iran is fostering war in Iraq and cooperating with Al Quaeda, which after what happened to Saddam indicates a fair degree of insanity. That is what King George also said about the colonials, who then quite rationally arranged help from King George's enemies. Iranian financed military movements, Hezbollah and Sadr, have been fairly well behaved - they don't target other people's children - just their own, but their willingness to cause the deaths of their own children is even more frightening than Al Quaeda's antics, though marginally less repugnant morally. People so willing to sacrifice children, are apt to be willing to use nuclear weapons. More King George-type remarks, as with arrogant tyrants everywhere and their authority suck-ups. To be sure, the children in their realms suffer as if colonials, or slaves, or wives, or sex toys, or faux-sacrosant idolized figurines, or nascent rebels who must be whipped regularly for moral instruction in subservience. If not Iran, then Ireland, if not Ireland, then a new Iraq, or NK, or PK. What the US-UK hegemon cannot face is that the bloody challenges to their moral supremacism is just getting under way inside and outside their borders. PJ O'Rouke's fighter planes of winners won't mean shit in this murderous crusade where the enemy wears no easy to spot uniform. The Chechens are the bellweather warriors. Kids and women among them indifferent to the old guys self-serving rules of war. Kill the heads of state, defense ministers and generals first, then down the line in reverse order. That'll likely bring over the lower downs who've eaten their shit, fought their battles, hated their guts. Women and kids among them.
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
James A. Donald: I don't recall the American revolutionaries herding children before them to clear minefields, nor surrounding themselves with children as human shields. No, not minefields, but a good percentage of Washington's army and that of the French, were children. Young boys were taught the art of war as gofers and undercover spies among the Brits. Some were caught and executed. Others packed weapons and fought like men who welcomed their foolhardy bravery when their manly courage withered. Today, even the US uses children in war, 17 being the minimum age to enlist. Others sneak in by lying about their age, some as young as 14. Recruiters look the other way when the kids and their parents lie. Been there, done that. Enlisted in the army at 15, served months before being kicked out when a relative ratted on me. Went in again at 17. That was not uncommon then, and still is not. Good way to get away from school and fucked up parents who use you like a beast of burden -- in every age and country. The military has found that teenagers are better fighters than those over 21, more malleable, patriotic, healthy, ready to kill when told it's okay. Older guys and gals think for themselves too much to charge a machine gun. A kid thinks life will never end. That's why it's not so hard to cultivate suicide bombers. Flying a $50 million plane is a piece of cake, no guts required. Fuck those stand-off cowards in artillery, the navy and air force. Grunts younger than 20 are the universal soldier. Non-caucasians especially. No need to mention today's Africans, the pre-teens and teens Mao used effectively, the underage North Koreans in the Korean Conflict, and not least the Amerindians who taught kids from puberty to make war -- boys and girls. It is worth pondering that older guys don't like war up close, in fact the the further away it is the better they like to promote it with Stallonian filmic ferocity -- witness the current yellow-bellied administration, though hardly the first to cry for war to be fought by disposable youngsters. What older soft-gutted guys in all nations like most is the Wagnerian tragedy, the soap opera sturm and drang, of other people's suffering and death for their loose-screw agenda.
Re: Keith Henson Needs Help
"R. A. Hettinga" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keith Henson Needs Help (MLP)By BaldrsonWed Sep 15th, 2004 at 07:42:14 AM EST[snip]Anyway, back to the question: Why should you care?Maybe you don't like Scientology.Maybe you like Keith.Maybe you just like to mess with the California government.Whatever, Keith Henson is asking for help and he quite probably actuallyneeds it. This is interesting. I haven't had the time to follow much of Mr. Henson's case; either the refugee claim, or the subsequent deportation proceedings. I do recall that he was incarcerated at theMetro West Detention Centerwhile some of his legal maneouvers were being heard in Oakville, and that won't havebeen very pleasant at all. People who belong to The Church of Scientology seem to comprise a rather nasty group,and I am not surprisedto hear that there are people who fear their reach and influence.Of course, the USjustice system has a number of problems that have been welldocumented in recent years, andis obviously no walk in the park for anyone who runs afoul of it for whatever reason. But given that, Ican't imagine the naïvetéof thought that would leadsomeone to believe thatCanada (and its judicial system) is so much better as to make it worthy as ahaven for contemporary US dissidents. The Church of Scientology is obviously somewhat active here, at least as far as I can detect; as areother [religious] special-interest groups. Despite this, or perhaps because of it,officials of government here seem only too willing to allow all manner of tomfoolery and hi-jinks to play out alongside the official processes of law. Tangentially, the Globe and Mail recently printed an article that used thephrase "asymetrical government" to seemingly describe the recent change of characterto the practises of federal governance in Canada. I can't imagine thatbodes well considering the term's likely relation to'asymetric warfare', but then perhaps some bored PSYOPS expert is merely having a little fun withGlobe readers. However,notwithstanding the spectre of improved 'asymmetric' Canadian government, I am not too intelligent in these matters and so there could be some very significant differences up here that makes it an attractive destination forrefugees fleeing your own very Happy Fun Government.It is a truism to say that people sometimes do the strangest things and that their motives are often extremely obscure, and so I am not surprised tofind myself mystified on occasion. Why, I don't believe I evenreally appreciating the subtleties of John Gilmore's currentcivil action against the USG over airline security screening procedures. Politicsreally isquitecomplex these days for the nonexpert. If Keith had asked me before he decided to set out for Canada, I probably would have advised him then that this is no utopia of jurisprudence and fair play. Sure, if one has enough (but not too much) money to spare, this can be a nice place, but I am told that the same holds true for Chile.There are tiers of access to publicservices and no exemplary history available to hold up as evidence to support the idea of Canada asmuch ofa sanctuary from the excesses of certain malign foreign government actors. And, sure, I have not travelled about Canada extensively so I can personally only attest to the existence of malign domestic government and non-governmentactors in the Greater Metropolitan Toronto area. Other provinces could be much, muchbetter than Southern Ontario. Of course my cynicism and discontent could be mostly a product of, and reaction tobeing more or less unilaterally hung out to dry by my friends, acquaintances, and the officials of my immediate experience in recent years. (Incidentally, I can't say that I haven't learned some important bits of data frompseudonymous benefactors, but the fact of pseudonymity andindirection in such instances isreally not very comforting. [shit] And furthermore, study, induction and deduction, as well asa whole bunch of testing comprise_the_ major contributors to what little peace of mindI posses if bound literatureis excepted. Help is clearly a commodity in short supply around here.) Anyhow, Keith's failed refugee claim is clearly significant. Considering my calendar at the moment I don't think there's much that I can do to help, unfortunately. I willwatch, though, and I'll be be interested to see exactlyhow the final moves play out in his case. Regards, Steve Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Re: Geopolitical Darwin Awards
A solid post. In this context I'd drill down a bit to the idea of fanaticism... And if you ask me, fanaticism never lasts very long anywhere, only for about a generation during turbulent times. That is what King George and his redcoats said about the ragtag colonials, American as well as those who suffered the king's abuse into the 20th Centruty. My running, personal theory is that Muslim fundamentalism (and in general, most fundamentalisms) get going when the locals gain a persistent sense that they're gettin' screwed over, and that their current government ain't helping a whole lot. It's kind of a devil's bargain to obtain a source of strength. By necessity it needs to reject a lot of the local culture, otherwise there isn't sufficient motivation to fight. In general, it's probably on many levels predictable and even reasonable. Of course, this can boil over into bizarre, fanatical behavior, but then again as Mr Young so aptly put it, fanatical is what the screw-ers normally call mass behavior they don't like. In the case of Nukes, I'd point out that the nuclear nations have a distinct advantage at the UN or any other bargaining table, so if I were Iranian I'd be working pretty hard to get something quasi-viable together that could be called a nuke. Of course, the few truly fanatical members of the local nuke-wannabees might get a hold of the block box and, well, that sucks. -TD _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
voting: economics of paper trails
Isn't it *cheaper* (as well as more accurate) to have preprinted ballots, optically scanned, then to have an embedded computer print out a paper trail? Ie, don't the benefits of volume printing beat the cheapest printing tech? Besides the other advantages of being self-verifiable, more accurate, intuitive, unhackable, not having to be destroyed or randomized (as with serial polling-place-kept paper trails), etc? Methinks the printing press / optical scanner industry is not resisting the Diebold/tech-fetishist whores adequately... I think Ben Franklin would agree.
